Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Rubin (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Darkwind (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Rubin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no notable references since 2009; uses her organization website as reference. As a leader of the JDL, she is already discussed on that organizations page. Any information here worth salvaging can be merged into the JDL article. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found quite a few mentions, but mostly in passing and mostly on non-notable blogs. This one looks reliable:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/tomstopics/item/violent_end_for_jdl_leaders_ari_rubins_death_ruled_suicide_201208151 And there may be others, but there doesn't appear to be enough for an article at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets GNG. Many RS refs, referring to many different facts in her background, notable among them being her lawsuit (which seems to be in a personal capacity, and not as a JDL official) -- and many of them after 2009, which if a wp:before search is done should be easily found ... we focus on what references exist in real life, and not just what happens to be in the article, at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use updating and freshening, but the consensus from 2009 still stands up. The reliable and verifiable sources about her support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets WP:GNG, however needs much improvement. ///EuroCarGT 03:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources given do more than mention the article subject in passing. It's not enough to be mentioned in a newspaper - significant coverage should consist of substantive discussion of the article subject, not a brief mention in relation to a larger issue. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. I think we would all agree that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources (such as the ones here, spanning over three decades) may be combined to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, the suggestion by nom that there are no notable references since 2009 is simply not correct; there are a number of later articles about Rubin vs. City of Lancaster ... and her role in that case, in which she is lead plaintiff, is more than trivial or passing. Similarly, the suggestion in the nomination that notable RS coverage of her is only with regard to the JDL is not correct, as coverage with regard to that case demonstrates.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking along the lines of Nwlaw63. There is no article about her or with a section that gives us her bio and background. I saw the articles that mention her in passing and that usually isn't enough. That's why I proposed a "delete and merge." The "Lancaster City Council Prayer" lawsuit is a good example why the merge won't work. It's an important and well-covered story. It may go to the supreme court. And requires a page of its own. If the story grows, I suspect (via WP:CRYSTALBALL) that we'll have a story on Mrs. Rubin. I've generally seen bios deleted especially when there is an article about the subject's organization but none that covers the person. In any case, the article is much improved. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Don't you agree that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I was under the impression that we need a good source on Rubin herself. If I'm wrong and a distributed synthesis can substitute, the article is informative. If I came across it today I wouldn't be motivated to do an AfD. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being open to thinking about it. You may find this informative -- wp:BASIC.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the "keeps" above and since this article survived an AfD in 2009 and has not only withstood the test of time, but has retained more than enough WP:RS that are clearly WP:V it is therefore quite surprising that the nominator wants to axe it for very flimsy reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.